Build them a small form factor PC. Don't connect the USB ports and don't provide an optical drive. Install FreeDOS, a basic dialup TCP/IP stack, an email client and a web browser. I'd also set it up to decompress and restore everything from a read-only partition every single time they boot, ideally before processing config files. If there isn't already a way to do this, FreeDOS does have source available, so you could modify that.
They cover that in the full memo:
Q: Why do some supplier employees not take breaks when others do?
A: There are some business functions and processes that have been fully outsourced (Outsourcing), such as cafeteria services, landscaping and call centers. These Outsourcing engagements are limited, require a certain set of criteria be met and must go through a rigorous approval process.
Between 2 and 3 years but it did not fail, so I don't know how long it would've lasted. I replaced it with a higher wattage "daylight" bulb a few months ago. I really like the much-less-yellow look of the daylight bulbs now and I don't think I'd use any other hue.
Well it's the keys, specifically the modifier keys, that are supposed to be sticky. That doesn't imply that their stickiness can only be affected by other keys.
I just tested and OS X treats the clicks and key presses the same way when sticky keys is enabled. Hit the modifier, the next click or key press is modified. Hit the modifier twice and all clicks and key presses and modified until you hit the modifier again to unlock.
Seems very much the logical way to do it.
The spec in question - http://www.x.org/docs/XKB/XKBp... as Peter references in the bug comments - discusses StickyKeys (4.4 on page 9) and strongly implies modifiers only unlatch on key presses; mouse buttons are not mentioned. His change made the code match this reading of the spec. I have a hard time believing that's what the spec writers intended, but if so then KDE's lock checkbox really isn't supposed to do anything.
This was my reaction as well. I looked at the trademark registration, which has a picture of the Fluke, then at Sparkfun's site. So, fair enough. However, I google image searched 'multimeter' and there are lots of multimeters in that same shade of yellow, of all sorts of brands. I had no idea yellow "meant" Fluke, personally. I think there's a valid case that this trademark has become diluted and generic. Whether all those others are licensed uses or not, if there's no scope for customer confusion of brand, it's no longer a valid trademark.
"Individual" in this case does NOT mean "person".
If you download the spreadsheet you can see that they classify total spending as either "direct" or "grants", of which the vast bulk is "direct". Everything that is not a grant must be being paid to an entity of some kind, whether an actual person, a company, a non-profit or something. You can verify this is the total Federal spending using the Monthly Treasury Statements at https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/... - I recommend the PDF versions.
As for the percentage going to veterans, I expect the number of veterans isn't growing very much, whereas the Federal budget is. So a constant amount in a larger total is going to be a smaller fraction.
Bottom line, this article is FUD and should not be taken serious by anyone.
Have you played Star Trek Online? Seems pretty casual-friendly, does a nice job with the lore, and a bunch of the ex-Paragon people are working on it.
Full disclosure: I worked on CoH and know the people in question.
The patents are about automatic failover when network nodes or spans break. The earlier patents are about having spare nodes and spans and deciding which to use when some part of the network fails (eg. having a node which broadcasts "who can help?" and available nodes broadcast back "i can help!" and a single node decides which available node to use). The later patents are about turning on and off routes between nodes to reconfigure the network, usually into some sort of mesh network.
I'm not a network engineer so it's hard for me to judge, but the earlier patents seem trivial to me especially since they're from the late 1990s. The latter patents might have some merit - the idea of changing the network to a mesh is interesting, but my gut feeling is they're mostly solutions that any decent engineer would come up with after a bit of head scratching.
If I come to you and ask you to sell me some dynamite so I can rob a bank with it, it doesn't matter whether I actually rob the bank or not. By agreeing to sell me the dynamite you become part of a criminal conspiracy. There's no duty on you to tell the cops about me, but there is the duty to say, "Sorry dude, I can't help you out with that".
It's against the law to fraudulently obtain (or conspire to obtain) a security clearance that requires you to have no family criminal ties if you do have a brother who is a criminal.
Because he was charged with advising and helping people lie to the federal government when they told him they were involved in illegal activity (eg. one of them said his brother was a "violent Mexican drug trafficker" for example. He was essentially involved in a conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and that's what they put him in jail for.
Polygraphs are tantamount to phrenology and graphology in my opinion, but that's not what this case was truly about.
Parental controls triggered by location as well as time, so basically yes. However, this is only a patent application and can thus be denied or challenged while under evaluation.
Here are a couple of the patents Apple was found to have infringed. They actually look non-obvious to me. Basically they're about running a special DNS proxy server that catches non-standard requests, checks credentials in some fashion, and either sets up a just-in-time VPN, passes them through to a normal DNS server, or returns an error. They also don't seem to be a troll company; it looks like this work was done as a government contract.
I didn't look for any details on how Facetime peer-to-peer worked so I don't know if the ruling is correct and generally I consider software non-patentable (copyright and trade secret should be enough) but this is not what I'd call a meritless patent troll case.